STATE OF KERALA Vs. MARY PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in O.A.No.181 of 2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the 'Tribunal' in short) filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P4 order dtd. 28/7/2017 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

(2.) The respondent herein filed the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) Going by the averments in the original application, the respondent is now working as a High School Assistant (Physical Science) in the Government Higher Secondary School, Arattukara, at Mananthavady. She had been sanctioned higher grade on completion of 10 years service in the post of P.D.Teacher, and she opted for higher grade on the date of completion of 10 years i.e., on 12.04.2002, as the same was more beneficial to her, as per the conditions prevailed at that period. But subsequently, by the order No.A3.9577/2014/L.Dis. dtd. 2/12/2014 of the Deputy Director of Education, she was allowed a junior-senior anomaly of 1997 Pay Revision orders. But the benefit of the said anomaly was allowed only up to the date of her higher grade availed on completion of 10 years service in the post of P.D. Teacher. By the above action, there occurred a change in the date of annual increment, and the increment falls due on 1st January of each year was changed to the 1st June of each year. The respondent is eligible for a re-option on her higher grade, as the rectification of junior-senior anomaly was allowed only on a subsequent date of her option for higher grade. In the meantime, the 3rd petitioner objected her fixation of the pay revision ordered in 2004, and directed to recover the excess pay drawn by the erroneous pay fixation made on the strength of the option submitted by the respondent. As per the orders then existing in the pay revision, the option for the revised pay should not go beyond the date of subsequent promotion if any. But the respondent, being a teacher, had no knowledge of such pay revision rules at that time, and it happened on the advice of her co-teachers working along with her. The A.E.O./DEO concerned, who is expected to know all such rules, should not have approved her erroneous pay fixation as per rules. If the D.E.O. had objected the same as per rules, of course, she would have given a changed option as per rules, and the present contingency would not have been occurred. But the same did not happen only because of the inaction on the part of the D.E.O., who? is the countersigning authority of the pay fixation of the H.S.As. Therefore, the departmental officials were also at fault for the erroneous pay fixation, and they are also liable for the excess amount drawn by the respondent. In such a situation, the Government is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees legally, and hence there is no legal justification for ordering such a huge amount by way of recovery of excess pay drawn after a long period and that too at the fag end of her superannuation. The respondent submitted a representation to the 1st petitioner showing all the aspects narrated above for redressal of her grievances, but in vain. Therefore, the respondent approached the Tribunal for redressal of her grievances.